LEO & Law Abiding CCW: Edited

[rabywk]

I have a question and know it will probably get closed down real quick, but here it goes.......

Do you feel that LEOs/Politicians should have to follow the same CCW and OC laws that a law abiding citizen has to, while they are off duty?

I don't know the laws of VA, but I am guessing that an off duty LEO, Judge, or Politician can go into a place that serves beer, but does not have to OC his firearm. Should they have to disarm when going on government property or a business that is posted?

When someone OC is approached the first question is, are you law enforcement. Why should this make a difference, if a LEO/Politician/Judge is OC and a citizen calls it in because they are concerned, shouldn't they be treated the same way as a citizen legally carrying OC. Can or would an off-duty LEO/Politician/Judge that prints/flashed/OC in public get a ticket or charges brought against him/her for inciting pubic fear?

I live in the State of Chicago, so I don't even have the right, but read all of your posts. I was just wondering if they have to follow the same rules and if not why?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[SIXTO]

Do you feel that LEOs/Politicians should have to follow the same CCW and OC laws that a law abiding citizen has to, while they are off duty?

No. Heres why... the LEO ends up putting himself in harms way serving the public and the state. Just because he is off duty does not mean the problems created while serving the public go away when the uniform is off.
Also, LEOS are held to a higher standard in the court, in training and on the street.
Should that mean the punishment should be less when an LEO makes a poor choice? Nope. No one is above the law.

[JD]

Also some Dept. REQUIRE thier LEO's to carry off duty.

Judges are granted a "courtesy" due to the fact that they may be recogzied by someone they have put behind bars, same goes for LEOs.

As for run of the mill political types, YES they should have to follow the same laws, I'm a firm believer in leading by example.


Most laws are written excluding LEOs, some states / areas treat LEOs the same as you and I regarding CC and "off limits areas" and that's just wrong in my book.

[FLJohn]

In Florida LEO's need a permit to carry off duty i think only reason i say that is i have taken the CCW class with a few.

[havegunjoe]

Do you feel that LEOs/Politicians should have to follow the same CCW and OC laws that a law abiding citizen has to, while they are off duty?

LEOs no, they are cops 24/7, all the rest yes. The rest deserve nor require any special privileges.
When someone OC is approached the first question is, are you law enforcement.

I have often thought that the first question should be do you have a permit to carry a firearm? It should not matter if you are a cop.
I live in the State of Chicago, so I don't even have the right, but read all of your posts. I was just wondering if they have to follow the same rules and if not why?

Sorry about where you live.

[rachilders]

Also some Dept. REQUIRE thier LEO's to carry off duty.

Judges are granted a "courtesy" due to the fact that they may be recogzied by someone they have put behind bars, same goes for LEOs.

As for run of the mill political types, YES they should have to follow the same laws, I'm a firm believer in leading by example.

+1

Most LEO's are also required to intervene when they see a crime being committed and as has been said already, place themselves in harms way as part of their job. As "civilian" permit holders, the opposite is true. Unless a deadly threat is immediate and/or directly involves us, we should not inject ourselves into a situation that would require us to use a weapon. I know the argument about not standing by while we witness a crime being committed and we can debate until the cows come home about having a "moral responsibility" to intervene, but that's a personal choice, not policy.

[Redneck Repairs]

Do you feel that LEOs/Politicians should have to follow the same CCW and OC laws that a law abiding citizen has to, while they are off duty?

in a word ( and only addressing LE ) NO . Colorado exempts LE from almost all restrictions , and the reason is that as an LE you in my state are on duty , and have a duty to respond 24/7 no matter where you are . Many depts mandate that you will carry off duty , some dont . As a ccw now i dont have a sworn duty to respond to a crime no matter how heinous , so i accept some limitations .

[blueyedevil]

I'm going to have to disagree here, I think LEO's and public officials should have to abide by most if not all Laws governing firearms possesion and ownership that all citizens are subject too. With politicians and public officials it's obvious, if abiding by those laws puts them in danger, it also puts the average joe in danger, and they ought to be subject to the ramifications of the laws they write and enforce.

With LEO's, obviously they should not be subject to "duty to retreat" laws, that's just common sense. But for just about anything else, I say they should be held to the same standard. Yes they have a dangerous job and should be respected for that. But they chose their carreer and pick up their paycheck on friday, I don't think being immune from following the same laws they enforce should be part of the benefits package. If a Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airmen is home on leave from Iraq they have to follow the laws of the land. And that being the case, I think LEO's should to.

[Serenity]

Do you feel that LEOs/Politicians should have to follow the same CCW and OC laws that a law abiding citizen has to, while they are off duty?

It's the wrong question.

The real question is why do "regular" citizens have to follow different rules from LEOs and court officers. I'm in favor of letting all of these people carry whenever and where ever they want to. I'd just like the right to do the same.

The point is that there is no good reason for there to be restrictions on the carry of firearms that should make it necessary to even have exceptions for others.

[Redneck Repairs]

The real question is why do "regular" citizens have to follow different rules from LEOs and court officers.

Salute sir that is indeed the question , and the answer ( as far as my feeble brain can see is beacuse of the oath to uphold ( the laws of the state xx and the constitution . ) We as ccw dont HAVE to act .. they do , that is the difference .

[SIXTO]

Dont forget that judges/ prosecutors are LEOS.

[bobernet]

+1 Serenity. The question was asked in a way that implies we need to "take down" the LEOs to our level. They deserve no less than the right to carry anywhere, at all times, as do law abiding private citizens employed in areas other than LEO.

[firefighter_56]

Oregon allows LEO's to carry without a CCW permit anywhere this includes LEO's from other states but they must have proper police ID with them, this also includes retired law enforcement again they must have valid ID.

I agree with the law.

[rabywk]

It's the wrong question.

The real question is why do "regular" citizens have to follow different rules from LEOs and court officers. I'm in favor of letting all of these people carry whenever and where ever they want to. I'd just like the right to do the same.

The point is that there is no good reason for there to be restrictions on the carry of firearms that should make it necessary to even have exceptions for others.

Serenity,

Thank you. I did ask the question wrong and that is what I was trying to get at. A life is a life. I feel that it would be hard to explain to a person that has gotten a restraining order against an abuse ex that they can't protect themselves while at a park, while an officer can. I understand that officers come into contact with more BGs than the average citizen, but it only takes one BG to ruin your life.

[Rob72]

+1

Most LEO's are also required to intervene when they see a crime being committed and as has been said already, place themselves in harms way as part of their job. As "civilian" permit holders, the opposite is true.

This is not at issue. Unless I misunderstood the first post, its about where and how citizens should be able to carry. We are all citizens. If you have applied for a CCWP, one assumes that you have a perceived risk that motivates you to carry...and if the State issues the permit, it is stating that you are responsible enough to be entrusted with deadly force, and by implication agrees with your risk assessment.

If one has a permit to "carry heat", perhaps one should not have the permit. If one has valid reason to believe LF may be necessary in defense...how is that different from off-duty LE...?